Jump to content
  • entries
    13
  • comments
    84
  • views
    4,886

Change... Define !


Seipher Caim

99 views

I was thinking of a little question that is always on the back of my mind... How could we define a change in alliance policy ?

You see, i'm not that naive, i understand that objective criteria can't be used here. There will always be people to deny any change in their enemy behavior... but there is surely some clues as to how one can describe a radical change ?

This question is motivated by a series of practical cases inspired by the CN history...

- What did indicate to CnG that ODN changed ?

- Why are a lot of people still bringing back valhalla's 2 years old stories to decide that "they havent changed" ?

- How will people decide that NPO has changed enough to their taste ?

- How will Purple change according to the belief that "lolpurple has to stop" ?

....

I know PR stunts rarely work, I see everyday people arguing without ends, I recently saw a dramatic and objective "negative change" (o/ Gramlins) but positive ones are very rare...

Just some thoughts.... ayou may have history I havent heard of "change" (negative and positive) that occured in CN and hence having some explanations for my little questions above. Comments welcomed here or in PM for sure !

4 Comments


Recommended Comments

there is no definitive definition to any of those. Many definitions exist for any alliance you speak about. Each one will be a mix of bias, truth, history, revisionism, and the like. thus, why CnG felt ODN changed while others did not or still do not would of course vary according to who you talked to. Why Valhalla has or has not changed while Sparta or MHA have? who knows. it will not only typically vary from alliance to alliance but also from person to person.

Link to comment

Change in government is a big one, especially autocratic-style alliance. Tulak Hord stepping down, for example, is a big change for Sparta. If the Mushroom Kingdom were to have a new king, that would be a huge change.

This also depends on whether the newcomer worked closely with the old leader. e.g. if Archon were to be replaced by SirWilliam, you probably (this is a guess, I haven't worked closely with either) wouldn't notice a big change since the two have worked together for so long anyway.

Using your ODN example, I believe Arsenal was relatively new to the scene when he became Secretary General, and he never worked under the Secretary Generals that earned ODN their bad reputation (WalkerNinja, etc).

Link to comment

Using your ODN example, I believe Arsenal was relatively new to the scene when he became Secretary General, and he never worked under the Secretary Generals that earned ODN their bad reputation (WalkerNinja, etc).

What ODN did during Karma was essentially the same as what they did under previous SecGens .I understand Arsenal wasn't SecGen during this time, if I recall correctly it was Sunstar, but still :P

Link to comment

Change in government is a big one, especially autocratic-style alliance. Tulak Hord stepping down, for example, is a big change for Sparta. If the Mushroom Kingdom were to have a new king, that would be a huge change.

This also depends on whether the newcomer worked closely with the old leader. e.g. if Archon were to be replaced by SirWilliam, you probably (this is a guess, I haven't worked closely with either) wouldn't notice a big change since the two have worked together for so long anyway.

Using your ODN example, I believe Arsenal was relatively new to the scene when he became Secretary General, and he never worked under the Secretary Generals that earned ODN their bad reputation (WalkerNinja, etc).

Arsenal was SoS at the time, and although he was quite vocal, he didn't have any more voting power than any other member. Arsenal has only been in government while both him and Sunstar were SG, so it is true that he never was involved during the bad old days :P

What ODN did during Karma was essentially the same as what they did under previous SecGens .I understand Arsenal wasn't SecGen during this time, if I recall correctly it was Sunstar, but still :P

Not really. We dropped Polar after WN manipulated a weird piece of legislation called the "Crisis Committee" where he dropped Polaris without GA consultation in one late night IRC session. In Karma, Sunstar and the rest of the government had a couple of huge topics in our department of discourse, spanning several days, to decide where the alliance would go. After some revelations about IRON, we chose to back Vanguard, R&R and INT, alliances we were extremely close to at the time, and in INT's case, still are. Polaris did not have GA backing, whereas Karma did.

As for change, we showed it by demonstrating a great deal of activity and economic improvement. To someone involved with the ODN, or someone close to us, it is incredibly easy to see that we have changed. To someone further away, I guess it is more difficult to see.

Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...